Odsal - RFL Selling the lease

[M j M]

11 minutes ago, Tubby said:

Not necessarily, it's generally the responsibilty of the landlord, unless a lower rent is agreed for the tenant to take it on.

I've been involved in businesses with around 500 different property leases and they've all had repairing and dilapidation clauses which require the business to be responsible for maintenance. Sometimes with a schedule of condition which mitigates dilaps.

There might be some big structural things the landlord will still be responsible for but unless sports stadia are different to other sorts of commercial property (it's possible) I can't see why maintenance would be anything other than the Bull's responsibility.

[OdsalBull]

Just now, M j M said:

I've been involved in businesses with around 500 different property leases and they've all had repairing and dilapidation clauses which require the business to be responsible for maintenance. Sometimes with a schedule of condition which mitigates dilaps.

There might be some big structural things the landlord will still be responsible for but unless sports stadia are different to other sorts of commercial property (it's possible) I can't see why maintenance would be anything other than the Bull's responsibility.

Lets not forget the Bulls are not sole tenants 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

I've been involved in businesses with around 500 different property leases and they've all had repairing and dilapidation clauses which require the business to be responsible for maintenance. Sometimes with a schedule of condition which mitigates dilaps.

There might be some big structural things the landlord will still be responsible for but unless sports stadia are different to other sorts of commercial property (it's possible) I can't see why maintenance would be anything other than the Bull's responsibility.

The painting that got the ground up to some kind of standard a few years ago was done by stockcar enthusiasts IIRC.

[RBKnight]

So is the £125K annual income going to be from both the Bulls and the stock cars ?

The Bulls poster earlier sort of implied that £125K was the Bull's annual rent.

For comparison purposes, Broncos supporters on here estimate that Plough Lane costs them £200K a year.

 

[OdsalBull]

2 minutes ago, RBKnight said:

So is the £125K annual income going to be from both the Bulls and the stock cars ?

The Bulls poster earlier sort of implied that £125K was the Bull's annual rent.

For comparison purposes, Broncos supporters on here estimate that Plough Lane costs them £200K a year.

 

Rightly so for quality of ground and location

[RBKnight]

17 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

Rightly so for quality of ground and location

Surely not for the "Jewel in the Crown" or "Wembley of the North" ? 

Joking aside, you're probably correct, but it illustrates quite how much money is required to stage top-class League in London.

[Tubby]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

I've been involved in businesses with around 500 different property leases and they've all had repairing and dilapidation clauses which require the business to be responsible for maintenance. Sometimes with a schedule of condition which mitigates dilaps.

There might be some big structural things the landlord will still be responsible for but unless sports stadia are different to other sorts of commercial property (it's possible) I can't see why maintenance would be anything other than the Bull's responsibility.

My experience absolutely doesn't compare with yours, but the four premises I have leased for my business, upkeep of the building has been the responsibility of the landlord.  Dilapidation coming in when I've made alterations to the interior.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

IIRC

Bulls run up a huge debt, go cap in hand to the RFL on the QT.

RFL #### themselves as they lent Bradford circa £1m unsecured, so decide they need something in return. Lease sale becomes public knowledge (iconic stadium, predatory developers and all that).

Bulls sell the lease.

Consequently another loan from the bank was also secured against the lease which Bradford now do not own.

Bank call in their loan.

Bulls go into admin (not before shafting their supporters and ex players with the infamous bucket collection).

This situation is entirely the fault of the Bulls management of the time, no one else.

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by PREPOSTEROUS

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, RBKnight said:

So is the £125K annual income going to be from both the Bulls and the stock cars ?

The Bulls poster earlier sort of implied that £125K was the Bull's annual rent.

For comparison purposes, Broncos supporters on here estimate that Plough Lane costs them £200K a year.

 

According to the marketing blurb the £125k is combined rent

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

According to the marketing blurb the £125k is combined rent

Perhaps the total rent has remained the same for some time.

Up to 2019 Bradford could have been paying that figure themselves. Because it was too much for them they left Odsal for Dewsbury. In 2021 they were able to return because they now only pay part of the £125k, with the motorsport paying the rest.

[OdsalBull]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Perhaps the total rent has remained the same for some time.

Up to 2019 Bradford could have been paying that figure themselves. Because it was too much for them they left Odsal for Dewsbury. In 2021 they were able to return because they now only pay part of the £125k, with the motorsport paying the rest.

Which was impeccable timing when you consider covid, I wonder what would have happened had we been paying the rent during this period. 

[Rovers13]

4 pages on odsal? Just fill it in and make em watch the rhinos

[OdsalBull]

5 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

4 pages on odsal? Just fill it in and make em watch the rhinos

Or worse yet Fev 

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, OdsalBull said:

Or worse yet Fev 

Ah but your forgetting it’s my game and those are not the rules

[Rovers13]

On a serious note though if RFL do sell their bit, what’s to say whoever does buy it won’t put your rent up more? 

[OdsalBull]

4 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

On a serious note though if RFL do sell their bit, what’s to say whoever does buy it won’t put your rent up more? 

Could well happen. The official line is protecting RL in Bradford a main aim, but do we trust them? I'm not so sure 

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, OdsalBull said:

Could well happen. The official line is protecting RL in Bradford a main aim, but do we trust them? I'm not so sure 

For me for that not to happen it would have to be someone associated with your club, because if it’s an investment they will obviously want more back than they paid for it. 

[RigbyLuger]

The MP has thrown her two penneth in again. Always appears when there's a negative Bulls story about. Not sure what a politician can do, make it a listed building due to its iconic nature?

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Rovers13 said:

On a serious note though if RFL do sell their bit, what’s to say whoever does buy it won’t put your rent up more? 

I would presume Bradford have a longterm agreement in place that would protect them from this but again they could certainly have rent review periods.

[paulwalker71]

4 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

This situation is entirely the fault of the Bulls management of the time, no one else.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that premise. Still, the question NOW is whether the Bulls supporters - who were completely unaware of what went on back in 2013 - should be punished forevermore because of the sins of those who owned the club back THEN.

I realise there are plenty on this forum who would enjoy seeing the Bulls wallow in misery from now to the end of time.

 

[paulwalker71]

3 hours ago, Rovers13 said:

4 pages on odsal? Just fill it in and make em watch the rhinos

Pffft!

When the original lease story broke in 2013, I started a thread on RL Fans that ran for well over 200 pages!

And it was still basically ignorant speculation, for the most part.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I would presume Bradford have a longterm agreement in place that would protect them from this but again they could certainly have rent review periods.

Not sure they have tbh. Taken from the blurb:

“Once a preferred buyer has been chosen, they will be granted a period of exclusivity during which they will be required to agree terms for a formal lease with the Bradford Bulls.”

[PREPOSTEROUS]

27 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that premise. Still, the question NOW is whether the Bulls supporters - who were completely unaware of what went on back in 2013 - should be punished forevermore because of the sins of those who owned the club back THEN.

I realise there are plenty on this forum who would enjoy seeing the Bulls wallow in misery from now to the end of time.

 

You guys were shafted, no doubt about it, and no you don't deserve the ###### that has come subsequently your way since.

[Rovers13]

39 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that premise. Still, the question NOW is whether the Bulls supporters - who were completely unaware of what went on back in 2013 - should be punished forevermore because of the sins of those who owned the club back THEN.

I realise there are plenty on this forum who would enjoy seeing the Bulls wallow in misery from now to the end of time.

 

Fans have rivalry etc but no fan wants another club to go under, that’s just terrible to think like that, we’re all in it together you’ve seen yourself when buckets are out majority of supporters fill them. 

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not sure they have tbh. Taken from the blurb:

“Once a preferred buyer has been chosen, they will be granted a period of exclusivity during which they will be required to agree terms for a formal lease with the Bradford Bulls.”

Dam that could knacker them, thats huge if right.